Tag: New Covenant Theology

“Perspectives on Israel and the Church: Four Views” edited by Chad O. Brand

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Perspectives on Israel and the Church: Four ViewsBook Details:
• Editor: Chad O. Brand
• Authors: Chad O. Brand, Tom Pratt Jr., Robert L. Reymond, Robert L. Saucy and Robert L. Thomas
• Publisher: B & H Academic (2015)
• Format: softcover
• Page Count: 317
• ISBN#: 9780805445268
• List Price: $29.99
• Rating: Highly Recommended

Blurbs:
“The issue of the relation of Israel and the Church is crucial in New Testament interpretation for soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Perspectives on Israel and the Church affords scholarly, well-articulated accounts of how traditional covenantal, progressive covenantal, traditional dispensational, and progressive dispensational theologies address these crucial issues from their distinctive perspectives.”
—Steve W. Lemke, provost, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

“Arguably no greater hermeneutical issue faces us today in biblical theology than the relationship between Israel and the Church in accordance with the redemptive plan and promises of God. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a better understanding of all sides of this subject.”
—Terry L. Wilder, professor and Wesley Harrison Chair of New Testament, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Publisher’s Description:
The relationship between Israel and the Church is one of the most debated issues in the history of theology. Some hold the view that there is almost seamless continuity between Israel and the Church, while others believe there is very little continuity. Additional perspectives lie between these two. This debate has contributed to the formation of denominations and produced a variety of political views about the state of Israel.

To advance the conversation, Perspectives on Israel and the Church brings together respected theologians representing four positions:

  • the Traditional covenantal view by Robert L. Reymond
  • the Traditional dispensational view by Robert L. Thomas
  • the Progressive dispensational view by Robert L. Saucy
  • the Progressive covenantal view by Chad Brand and Tom Pratt Jr.

Overview:
Perhaps there is no issue which more clearly divides conservative Evangelicals, than the question of the relationship between Israel and the Church. Subsumed beneath that overriding concern are the intramural debates over soteriology (Calvinism, Arminianism or “neither”), eschatology (premillennial or amillennial and pre-trib or post-trib), and ecclesiology (paedobaptism or credobaptism). These questions are not minor. The baptism question divides the Protestant church into denominations. The millennial question bars the entry into parachurch organizations, mission boards and educational institutions. Yet most agree that people from all perspectives on this issue take the Bible seriously: this is a Christian debate, separating fellow believers.

In the last hundred years, the larger question over Israel and the Church has turned from a covenant theology vs. dispensationalism debate into a more nuanced and many-sided affair. Dispensationalism has matured, and progressive dispensationalism presents a new understanding of the question which is both true to its dispensational roots and yet distinct at the same time. And in recent years, new covenant theology has arisen and is often referred to by the term “progressive covenantalism.” This refinement and change is not a bad thing. As the views have interacted with each other, people have tried to modify and clarify their understanding of Scripture. Such has been the history of the Church down through the ages. And while some look at the newer positions as an abandonment of principles, others may see a hopeful realignment that results in a greater unity across all the positions. Indeed it seems that progressive dispensationalism has become a primary view in the academy that is viewed with mutual respect by covenantal views.

A new book from Broadman and Holman offers a restatement of the four dominant positions today, and includes an interaction between them. Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views brings together three of the most proficient authors for their positions, along with a team of authors for the newer progressive covenantal view. This book presents the debate in a calm and safe environment and allows some of the foremost representatives of the positions to advocate their approach.

Covenantal Theology:
Robert L. Reymond’s chapter on covenantal theology is sharp and clear. He makes a point that modern softenings of dispensationalism still remain somewhat unclear as to the nature of saving faith for Old Testament saints. Throughout his chapter and in his responses, he does a great job unpacking his view and addressing the important points in other positions. He sees both progressive dispensationalism, and progressive covenantalism (as presented in this book) as still too close to dispensationalism and its pre-tribulational, pre-millennial position. His is a strictly amillennial position that sees Revelation as a cyclical book with the millennium being another description of the church age. He does not stress too much the three covenants of classic covenantal theology (coventant of grace, of redemption, and of works), instead he focuses more on the biblical covenants in an approach similar to that of O. Palmer Robertson. He also does not shy away from the term “replacement theology” but proudly uses that description of his position (p. 49).

Traditional Dispensationalism:
Robert L. Thomas’s chapter on traditional dispensationalism presents the dispensationalism I learned with clarity. This is Ryrie’s position which has sometimes been described as “modified” as opposed to “classical.” Thomas doesn’t agree necessarily with the “modified” descriptor, however. Thomas explains that the kingdom was offered and then rejected in Christ’s ministry, and presents a case against taking the NT use of the OT as a guide for how we should interpret Scripture. He also emphasizes how the OT promises are not cancelled by the NT. In his treatment of the land promise, however, he doesn’t deal with the conditionality in the OT associated with it (for instance Deuteronomy’s exhortations to faithfulness so that they would inherit the land, and even how passages like Ps. 37:9, 11 should be understood). He also doesn’t address Rom. 4:13 and how the “land” is expanded to the “world.” He makes a big deal too about no clear-cut use of the term “Israel” for the Church (although so many other Jewish terms and descriptions are used for the Church).

Of note is Thomas’s interaction with Saucy’s chapter on progressive dispensationalism. He takes issue with Saucy’s allowance for the NT use of the OT to shape his understanding of the OT passages. Thomas notes:

By allowing NT passages to provide meaning for the OT, one is doing the same as other nondispensational systems… Saucy’s statement, “proper interpretation begins with the Old Testament,” should be refined to read, “proper interpretation of the Old Testament begins and ends with the Old Testament before going to the New Testament.” (p. 218)

He also is not happy with Saucy’s refusal to defend a pre-tribulational rapture.

Progressive Dispensationalism:
Robert Saucy does a good job explaining progressive dispensationalism. Many reared in traditional dispensationalism, like me, have later rejected that system and now find themselves leaning toward covenant theology but without a good understanding of later developments in dispensationalism. This chapter offers a helpful explanation for those unfamiliar with this position.

Saucy painstakingly lays down hermeneutical principles undergirding his position. He ultimately agrees with an “already, not yet” approach to prophecy but emphasizes the “partial” nature of many of the begun-to-be fulfilled prophecies. Salvation is not just provided through Israel and her Messiah, it is “channeled through” Israel:

From Isaac, the descendants of Abraham are traced by physical descent through Jacob and his sons until the Seed, Jesus Christ, appears and the Gentiles are included in him. It is therefore impossible to ignore this physical dimension and identify Abraham’s seed merely as anyone of faith…. Thus, on the basis of the promise to Abraham, Israel is an ethnic people who constitute a nation among nations that bears a unique relationship to God — a nation created by God in fulfillment of his salvation promise. (p. 166-167)

So even though salvation extends to the Gentiles, they are not “spiritual Jews” or “conceived as part of Israel” (p. 184). Eph. 2 does not speak to Gentiles joining Israel in the covenant people of God. Instead both are part of a new humanity, but each are still distinct (p. 191). He again emphasizes that the Church is never called Israel (yet it is called the “real circumcision”…). So there is a unity in the people of God now as both Israel and the Church are together the “eschatological people of God” (p. 190). Yet, there is still a role for political Israel to play in a future millennium to totally fulfill historic promises. Saucy’s conclusion explains it best:

Rather than detracting from the spiritual unity of God’s saving program present in the church, the fulfillment of Israel’s role as a particular nation, in which God is yet to display his glory, will expand the present spiritual salvation to bring about that holistic salvation of individual and society promised by the prophets, in which all people are united in their diversity as the one people of God. (p. 208)

Progressive Covenantalism:
Chad Brand and Tom Pratt, in their chapter on progressive covenantalism intriguingly point to the debate over the new perspective on Paul as a way forward in this debate. There is a debate over whether personal salvation was primarily in view in Romans or the wider work of God for the people Israel and indeed all of creation. The answer is yes: both are in view. And that is how they approach the question of Israel vs. the Gentile church. There is a corporate and personal element in this question. Who are the people of God and what are their place in salvation history? “Israel” and the “Church” are terms separating out a “dichotomy” where there really seems to be a unity, a oneness to the people of God throughout the Old and New Testaments (p. 233-237). Supporting points for this include:

  1. The oneness of God demands one people.
  2. The people of God are his by divine election and spiritual birth.
  3. The people of God arise from the supporting root of historic Israel.
  4. The marker of the people is the internal presence of the Holy Spirit.
  5. The people of God are the body of Christ.

This approach avoids the rigid “replacement theology” that is directly advocated by Reymond. Instead it interprets the true people of God through all ages as representative of true believers today. This presentation actually struck me as less directly baptistic than the new covenant theology position of Stephen Wellum and Peter Gentry presented in Kingdom through Covenant (Crossway, 2012). (The authors of this volume mention that Wellum and Gentry’s work was released after their book was all but finished, yet they are in substantial agreement with that position, see p. 12.) Emphasizing the experience of the Spirit in the true people of God has the drawback of downplaying the church ordinance of baptism, which seems odd since new covenant theology typically corrects covenant theology on the very question of baptism.

Brand and Pratt go out of their way to renounce a “replacement theology” position:

…we conclude that the idea of “replacement” of Israel by “the church” with a resultant “church age” is not only a misnomer but a misreading of the history of salvation as well. Richard Bauckham remarks, in commenting on Rev 7:4, that the picture there presented “indicates not so much the replacement of the national people of God as the abolition of its national limits.” In Goldswothy’s characterization, it is the glorious result of the mission to the Gentiles carried out by the saved remnant of ethnic Israelites. Therefore, the current stage is more adequately denominated the age of transformation or new creation, for “in Messiah” nothing matters but “new creation” (Gal 6:15), which for Paul and others has already begun, though it has not yet been consummated. (p. 257)

Brand and Pratt go on to explore how the NT really does refer to the church as “Israel” (or by terms referring to Israel). In this section I was intrigued by their explanation of how Luke in Acts doesn’t use the term “church” for the new people of God until after Stephen first roots the term’s meaning in the OT assembly of God’s people. They then conclude with an explanation of their post-tribulational, premillennial view. They concede that reading Revelation in a roughly chronological order is not necessary to their conclusion (premillennialism), but they don’t seem to go out of their way to allow for variations of progressive covenantalism that are not premillennial. Perhaps they are at pains to keep their position tenable for institutions that require premillennialism, I cannot say; but I found their advocacy of premillennialism confusing and contradictory. Kingdom through Covenant‘s presentation of progressive covenantalism lacked any premillennial hints, and also majored on the land promise (and Israel’s identity herself) as typological in nature, and that was extremely persuasive. So the progressive covenantalism offered in this book seems a step lower than what Wellum and Gentry offer. The position as a whole is still young, and this book will certainly help those trying to understand that position.

Recommendation:
I highly recommend this book for those seeking to sort out their own position on how the Old and New Testaments should be read in light of each other. Even if you have “landed” on one perspective in this debate, this book will both challenge and sharpen you. With the possible exception of the progressive covenantal view, the book presents a top-notch explanation for each of the major views. The arguments are well-reasoned, and Scriptural discussion abounds. Footnotes point the way to further reading on important questions, and the end result is a useful and accessible manual on the nature of this debate at present. The book will reward careful study and offer help to some who are confused. It was a joy to work my way through it and I trust it will benefit both student and teacher alike.

About the Authors:
Chad O. Brand has served as a pastor and has taught theology and church history for more than twenty years at three Baptist colleges and seminaries.

Tom Pratt Jr. is president of Eagle Rock Ministries and is a Bible teacher, preacher, and freelance writer.

Robert L. Reymond (1932-2013) was professor of Theology emeritus at Knox Theological Seminary.

Robert L. Saucy is distinguished professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.

Robert L. Thomas is professor of New Testament emeritus at The Masters Seminary.

Where to Buy:
• Amazon
• ChristianBook.com
• direct from B & H Academic

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by B & H Academic. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Ephesians 2 & Dispensationalism (part 1)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

From time to time, I get feedback from readers that they wish I hadn’t gone so far in my reforms and actually abandoned dispensationalism. They view that move as more a pendulum swing on my part or being unduly influenced by the attraction of Reformed thinkers. I admit that such tendencies are real, and we should all watch out for the tendency to be carried away by the charismatic appeal of any given leader whom we respect. But my views on dispensationalism, I hope, are informed by my careful study of Scripture.

I am less hesitant of progressive dispensationalism, and I haven’t necessarily landed when it comes to new covenant theology or covenant theology proper. But when it comes to classic dispensationalism as originally taught by Chafer and Scofield, and as further elaborated by Ryrie, Walvoord and others, I have strong reservations. Certain beliefs and tendencies of classic dispensationalism contradict Scripture in my opinion and affect one’s entire outlook on the Scriptures. For me, Romans 4 and Galatians 3 were significant in directing me away from dispensationalism. Ephesians 2 is also a pivotal passage. I’ve blogged on Romans 4, in my series Understanding the Land Promise. Today I want to start a 3 part series on Ephesians 2.

For this series, I’m going to borrow from Kenneth Gentry’s study on “Dispensationalism and Ephesians”. He shares 6 points from Ephesians that he believes contradict the foundations of dispensationalism. I am choosing the 3 that were meaningful to me, in my own journey away from dispensationalism. Don’t misunderstand me, by borrowing from his blog with its controversial name: AgainstDispensalism.com, I am not advocating a mean and spiteful view of dispensationalists. I held to classic dispensationalism for many years and I know many good people who take a generally dispensationalist approach. I’m borrowing form Gentry’s study purely because I can, and it will make it easier for me to discuss why I believe Ephesians 2 is so detrimental to dispensationalism’s claims.

Without further ado, here is the first point from Ephesians 2 which I find so important for this whole debate.

The Jew and Gentile are forever merged into one body in the final phase of God’s redemptive plan.

The leading classic dispensationalist scholar of the last fifty years is Charles C. Ryrie. On p. 39 in his important 1995 work Dispensationalism he reiterates his 1966 observation from the book’s first edition: “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” According to Ryrie: “A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.” He then states rather dogmatically: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”

We must note two aspects of the matter that come undermine the system. In dispensationalism’s two-peoples-of-God theology they must hold that God (1) distinguishes Jew and Gentile and (2) that he does so permanently (at least in history, though many carry the distinction into eternity). How are these observations fatal to the system? And in light of our study in Ephesians, how do we see that problem in Paul’s epistle?

Paul notes very clearly and forcefully that God merges Jew and Gentile into one body, which we now call the church. He even encourages the Gentiles with the knowledge that they are now included among God’s people and are partakers of their blessings. They are not separate and distinct from Israel but are adopted into her. Note Ephesians 2:11–19:

“Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “˜Uncircumcision’ by the so-called “˜Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands “” remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.”

Note very carefully what Paul states and how it contradicts the notion of a distinction between Jew and Gentile, between Israel and the church:

1. Paul states that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12). This is an observation about their past condition.
2. He argues that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . strangers to the covenants of promise” (plural covenants / singular promise). This is an observation about their past condition.
3. He reiterates the Gentiles’ former condition that has now been changed: “But now in Christ you who formerly were far off have been brought near” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
4. He resolutely declares that Christ has effected “peace” in that he “made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” (Eph 2:14). This is their new experience and condition.
5. He restates this once again by noting that Christ made “the two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15). This is their new experience and condition.
6. He recasts this very thought noting that Christ determined to “reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” This is their new experience and condition.
7. He continues by insisting that Christ “came and preached peace to you [Gentiles] who were far away” (Eph 2:17). This is their new experience and condition.
8. He states still again that “through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18). This is their new experience and condition.
9. He declares this fact once again: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
10. He insists: “but you are fellow citizens with the saints [obviously the Jews], and are of God’s [singular] household” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
11. Paul states once again that the Gentiles are a part of “the [singular] whole building, being fitted together” and “are being built together” (Eph 2:21). This is their new experience and condition.

Dispensationalism distinguishes Jew and Gentile permanently. Paul merges the two into one new body permanently.

I can attest that a separation between Israel and the Church was drilled into me in Bible College. It certainly is the distinguishing characteristic of classic dispensationalism (progressive dispensationalists seem to ditch that point, from what I’ve read). I don’t know how you can read Eph. 2 and come away with the idea that God didn’t break down the barriers and make of the two peoples “one new man”. If that’s what God did, then where do we see here the concept of going back to the two separate peoples again at some point? Parallel to this is Rom. 11, we see there the Gentiles are grafted into a single Olive tree from which unbelieving Israel was broken off of. At a later point Israel may be grafted back in, but they will be grafted back into the single Olive tree, there won’t be two Olive trees, one Jewish and one Gentile.

Stay tuned for part 2 of this series.

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 2

~ fundyreformed ~ 16 Comments

–continuing from yesterday’s post.

The Land Promise Fulfilled?

But was the actual promise fulfilled? Were the boundaries of the land promised in Gen. 15:18-21 ever completely owned by Israel? The dispensationalists say no, and they point to history and the Biblical record of what land Israel possessed. The Philistines and other groups remained in the land such that Israel never truly owned all the land.

However, as  I started studying these claims on my own a few years ago, I came across an article by my friend Nathan Pitchford which pointed out that Scripture Itself declares that the promise of the land was fulfilled. In his article entitled Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant, Nathan pointed me to Joshua 21:43-45. Since then, I’ve also seen this restated in other scriptures, which I will quote below.

So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:43-45)

So the descendants went in and possessed the land, and you subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gave them into their hand, with their kings and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would. And they captured fortified cities and a rich land, and took possession of houses full of all good things, cisterns already hewn, vineyards, olive orchards and fruit trees in abundance. So they ate and were filled and became fat and delighted themselves in your great goodness. (Nehemiah 9:24-25)

Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant. (1 Kings 8:56)

Nathan goes on in  his paper to explore how Abraham himself viewed the land. He was looking for a heavenly city and not satisfied with an earthly inheritance, according to Hebrews 11:10, 13-16. Nathan shows how even in Genesis we can see this heavenward focus  about Abraham. I encourage you to read his paper for more.

In the  next post in this series, I will explore a Scriptural justification for “spiritualizing” the land promise. And I’ll link you to another  resource that may put everything into perspective for you.

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 1

~ fundyreformed ~ 27 Comments

Some of you probably know that I am a former dispensationlist. I have since embraced Covenant Theology, at least in a broad sense. One of the key factors in my change concerning this position centered on the promise of the land.

In my experience, the promise concerning a land for Abraham’s descendants plays a vital role in supporting the claims of Dispensationalism. Since the specific plot of land promised in Genesis 15 has not yet been completely occupied by Israel, we must expect a future literal fulfillment of this promise. This leads to the conclusion that God still has dealings with physical/national Israel and promises He must keep for them, which in turn leads us to understand that God’s plans for the Church are different than His plans for Israel. God thus has two peoples, Israel and the Church, and two purposes (at least) for His interactions with man in this world.

My particular understanding of Dispensationalism included the notion that the church age was basically a parenthesis from his plan for Israel. And that his plans for Israel would be culminated in a physical thousand year reign in which the Temple and its physical sacrifices would be reinstated. Many dispensationalists today do not agree with these particular views, but nevertheless there are many who still hold to them, largely because of their support of Dispensationalism.

Since land was so central to Dispensationalism, when I saw how the New Testament treated the land promise, I soon became more and more convinced that Dispensationalism is flawed, and Covenant Theology or something similar to it, must be the preferred way of understanding how Scripture fits together.

New Testament View of The Land Promise

Compare these verses to the Dispensational understanding of the land promise:

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matt. 5:5)

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith….. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring“”not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,… (Rom. 4:13, 16)

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” (Eph. 6:1-3)

Notice that the meek inherit the earth. The very promise given to Abraham concerning the land is promised to his spiritual descendants. And also the Gentile Ephesian children are promised long life in “the land” (or “the earth” as the NASB has it). Compare Eph. 6:3 with the promise as stated in Exodus 20:12b: “that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.” Paul holds up this promise for the Ephesian Christians.

This NT understanding of the land promise certainly seems to spiritualize the promise [should the Ephesians really expect to live long in Canaan? or should the meek expect to inherit Canaan?] or more properly, to expand it to include the whole world (Rom. 4). And indeed the promise that God would be with Abraham’s descendants, dwell with them and be their God (see Gen. 17:7-8, also Ex. 29:45, Lev. 26:12, and Ez. 37:27) is repeated and realized in Rev. 21:3: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them”. Certainly the New Testament seems to indicate that the land promise points us to this ultimate reality.

In the next posts, I will look at the land promise a little more closely, and provide some links which may prove helpful for further study.